On 12/15/25 3:11 AM, Cosmo via agora-official wrote:
I vote as follows:
9277* 4st+ 3.0 Bring Back Yellow
AGAINST
9278* 4st+ 3.0 Bring Back Science (fixing the
oops)
AGAINST
9279~ ais523 2.0 Less confusing Speaker
nomination
AGAINST
At the very least, this is unnecessary. It also creates a potential problem:
what if the office of Speaker turns over between the win and the Prime
Minister's action to appoint the winner? The Prime Minister can't make the
required appointment. "CAN implies SHALL" does not imply "CANNOT implies the
absence of SHALL" ("SHALL NOT" != "absence of SHALL" -- the language here is
awkward unfortunately)
> [The existing rule is unclear about when the win-created ability to
> appoint a Speaker ends. For example, suppose a player wins twice in the
> same message: under the existing rules that may create an obligation to
> reinstall em as Speaker the next time a new Speaker is nominated for
> non-win reasons, because only one of the two appointment permissions
> was discharged at the time of eir original appointment.]
CFJ 4092 [1] covered this. There are two obligations created, but the single
appointment satisfies both.
[1] https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg47243.html
--
Mischief
Collar, Collector
Hat: sleeping cap
